Fs^ 



^5!>, 



LB 875 
.F58 
Copy 1 



PUBLICATIONS OF THE GENERAL 
EDUCATION BOARD 



OCCASIONAL PAPERS, No. 3 



A MODERN SCHOOL 



BY 

ABRAHAM FLEXNER 



THE GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD 

61 Broadway New York City 

1916 



PUBLICATIONS 

OF THE 

GENERAL EDUCATION BOARD 

sent on request 

The General Education Board : An Account of 
its Activities 1902-1914. Cloth, 254 pages, with 
32 full-page illustrations and maps. 

Public Education in Maryland, By Abraham 
Flexner and Frank P. Bachman. Paper or 
cloth, 196 pages, illustrated. 



OCCASIONAL PAPERS 

1. The Country School of To-morrow, By Fred- 
erick T. Gates. Paper, 15 pages. 

2. Changes Needed in American Secondary 
Education, By Charles W. Eliot. Paper, 29 
pages. 

3. A Modern School, By Abraham Flexner. 
Paper, 24 pages. 



Report of the Secretary of the General Educa- 
tion Board, 1914-1915, paper, 96 pages. 



J^^^ 



LB 9^ 



PREFATORY NOTE 

At several of its recent meetings, the subject of elementary and 
secondary education has been discussed by the General Education 
Board. President Eliot's paper, entitled "Changes Needed in 
American Secondary Education"^ was prepared in this connection 
and was the centre of discussion at one meeting; the present 
paper formed the topic of discussion at another. The attitude 
of the Board towards the position taken in these two papers is ex- 
pressed in the following, quoted from the minute adopted by the 
Board: 

"The General Education Board does not endorse or promulgate 
any educational theory, but is interested in facilitating the trial 
of promising educational experiments under proper conditions, 

"The Board authorizes the pubUcation of these papers with 
a request for criticism and suggestions, and an expression of opinion 
as to the desirability and feasibility of an experiment of this type." 



^Published by the General Education Board as No. 2 in its series of Occa- 
sional Papers. 



A MODERN SCHOOL 

BY 

ABRAHAM FLEXNER 

CURRENT EDUCATION 

AS PRESIDENT ELIOT has so clearly pointed out in his 
^A paper on the "Changes Needed in American Secondary 
-^ "^ Education," tradition still too largely determines both 
the substance and the purpose of current education. A certain 
amount of readjustment has indeed taken place; in some respects 
almost frantic efforts are making to force this or that modern sub- 
ject into the course of study. But traditional methods and pur- 
poses are strong enough to maintain most of the traditional cur- 
riculum and to confuse the handling of material introduced in 
response to the pressure of the modern spirit. It is therefore 
still true that the bulk of the time and energy of our children at 
school is devoted to formal work developed by schoolmasters with- 
out close or constant reference to genuine individual or social 
need. The subjects in question deal predominantly with words 
or abstractions, remote from use and experience; and they con- 
tinue to be acquired by children because the race has formed the 
habit of acquiring them, or, more accurately, the habit of going 
through the form of acquiring them, rather than because they 
serve the real purposes of persons living to-day. Generally speak- 
ing, it may be safely affirmed that the subjects commonly taught, 
the time at which they are taught, the manner in which they are 
taught, and the amounts taught are determined by tradition, not 
by a fresh and untrammeled consideration of Hving and present 
needs. 



6 

I am not forgetful of the fact that the moment a student takes 
fire in studying any subject, no matter how remote or abstract, 
it assumes a present reality for him. Thus, sometimes through 
the personality of the teacher, less often through the congeniality 
of the subject matter, Latin and algebra may seem as real to partic- 
ular students as woodwork, Shakespeare, biology or current events. 
It still remains true, however, that these cases are highly excep- 
tional; and that most children in the elementary and high schools 
struggle painfully and ineffectually to bring the subject matter 
of their studies within a world that is real and genuine for them. 
The best of them succeed fitfully; most of them never succeed 
at all. 

It is perhaps worth while stopping long enough to show by 
figures the extent to which our current teaching fails. Complete 
statistics which would tell us how many of all the pupils who study 
Latin and algebra and geometry fail to master them do not exist. 
But we know that a large percentage of the better students of 
these subjects try the College Entrance Examinations, and that 
for these examinations many receive special drill in addition to 
the regular teaching. Now in the examinations held by the College 
Entrance Board in 1915, 76.6 per cent, of the candidates failed 
to make even a mark of 60 per cent, in Cicero; 75 per cent, failed 
to make a mark of 60 per cent, in the first six books of Vergil, every 
line of which they had presumably read and re-read; 69.7 per cent, 
of those examined in algebra from quadratics on failed to make as 
much as 60 per cent.; 42.4 per cent, failed to make 60 per cent, in 
plane geometry. What would the record be if all who studied 
these subjects were thus examined by an impartial outside body? 
Probably some of those who fail do not do themselves justice; but 
as many — perhaps more — of the few who reach the really low mark 
of 60 per cent, do so by means of devices that represent stultifica- 
tion rather than intelhgence. For nothing is commoner in the 
teaching of ancient languages and formal mathematics than drill- 
ing in arbitrary signs by means of which pupils determine me- 
chanically what they should do, without intelligent insight into 
what they are doing. It is therefore useless to inquire whether a 
knowledge of Latin and mathematics is valuable, because pupils 
do not get it; and it is equally beside the mark to ask whether the 
effort to obtain this knowledge is a valuable discipline, since failure 



7 
is so widespread that the only habits acquired through faiUng to 
learn Latin or algebra are habits of slipshod work, of guessing and 
of mechanical application of formulae, not themselves understood. 

A word should perhaps be said at this point by way of explaining 
why the Germans appear to succeed where we fail. There are 
two reasons: in the first place, the German gymnasium makes a 
ruthless selection. It rejects without compunction large num- 
bers whom we in America endeavor to educate; and on the edu- 
cation of this picked minority it brings to bear such pressure as 
we can never hope to apply — family pressure, social pressure, 
official pressure. Under such circumstances, success is possible 
with small numbers; but the rising tide of opposition to the classical 
gymnasium and the development of modern schools with equivalent 
privileges show that even in Germany the traditional education is 
undermined. 

But not only do American children as a class fail to gain either 
knowledge or power through the traditional curriculum — they 
spend an inordinately long time in failing. The period spent in 
school and college before students begin professional studies is 
longer in the United States than in any other western country. 
An economy of two or three years is urgently necessary. The 
Modern School must therefore not only find what students can 
really learn — it must feel itself required to solve its problem within 
a given number of years — the precise number being settled in 
advance on social, economic and professional grounds. Its prob- 
lem may perhaps be formulated in these terms: how much edu- 
cation of a given type can a boy or girl get before reaching the 
age of, let us say, twenty, on the theory that at that age general 
opportunities automatically terminate? 

A MODERN CONCEPTION OF EDUCATION 

Before I undertake to do this, it is necessary to define education 
for the purposes of this sketch; and for obvious reasons tliis de- 
finition will be framed from a practical rather than from a philosoph- 
ical point of view. All little children have certain common needs; 
but, beginning with adolescence, education is full of alternatives. 
The education planned for children who must leave school at 
fourteen necessarily differs in extent and thus to a degree in con- 
tent from that feasible for those who can remain, say, two years 



8 

longer, so as to acquire the rudiments of a vocation. Still different 
are the possibilities for children who have the good fortune to 
remain until they are eighteen or twenty, reasonably free during 
this lengthened period from the necessity of determining procedure 
by other than educational considerations. I assume that the 
Modern School of which we are now speaking contemplates liberal 
and general education in the sense last-mentioned. With regard 
to children who expect to enjoy such opportunities, what do we 
moderns mean when we speak of an educated man? How do we 
know and recognize an educated man in the modern sense? Wliat 
can he do that an uneducated man — uneducated in the modern 
sense — cannot do? 

I suggest, that, in the first place, a man educated in the modern 
sense, has mastered the fundamental tools of knowledge: he can 
read and write; he can spell the words he is in the habit of using; 
he can express himself clearly orally or in writing; he can figure 
correctly and with moderate facility within the limits of practical 
need; he knows something about the globe on which he lives. So 
far there is no difference between a man educated in the modern 
sense and a man educated in any other sense. 

There is, however, a marked divergence at the next step. The 
education which we are criticising is overwhelmingly formal and 
traditional. If objection is made to this or that study on the 
ground that it is useless or unsuitable, the answer comes that it 
''trains the mind" or has been valued for centuries. "Training 
the mind" in the sense in which the claim is thus made for algebra 
or ancient languages is an assumption none too well founded; 
traditional esteem is an insufficient offset to present and future 
uselessness. A man educated in the modern sense will forego the 
somewhat doubtful mental discipUne received from formal studies; 
he will be contentedly ignorant of things for learning which no 
better reason than tradition can be assigned. Instead, his edu- 
cation will be obtained from studies that serve real purposes. Its 
content, spirit and aim will be realistic and genuine, not formal or 
traditional. Thus, the man educated in the modern sense will be 
trained to know, to care about and to understand the world he 
lives in, both the physical world and the social world. A firm grasp 
of the physical world means the capacity to note and to interpret 
phenomena; a firm grasp of the social world means a compre- 



9 

hension of and sympathy with current industry, current science 
and current politics. The extent to which the history and Hter- 
ature of the past are utilized depends, not on what we call the 
historic value of this or that performance or classic, but on its 
actual pertinency to genuine need, interest or capacity. In any 
case, the object in view would be to give children the knowledge 
they need, and to develop in them the power to handle themselves 
in our own world. Neither historic nor what are called purely 
cultural claims would alone be regarded as compelling. 

Even the progressive curricula of the present time are far from 
accepting the principle above formulated. For, though they 
include things that serve purposes, their eliminations are altogether 
too timid. They have occasionally dropped, occasionally cur- 
tailed, what experience shows to be either unnecessary or hope- 
lessly unsuitable. But they retain the bulk of the traditional 
course of study, and present it in traditional fashion, because an 
overwhelming case has not — so it is judged — yet been made against 
it. If, however, the standpoint which I have urged were adopted, 
the curriculum would contain only what can be shown to serve a 
purpose. The burden of proof would be on the subject, not on 
those who stand ready to eliminate it. If the subject serves a 
purpose, it is eligible to the curriculum; otherwise not. I need 
not stop at this juncture to show that "serving a purpose," "use- 
ful," "genuine," "realistic," and other descriptive terms are not 
synonymous with "utilitarian," "materiaUstic," "commercial," etc., 
for intellectual and spiritual purposes are genuine and vaHd, pre- 
cisely as are physical, physiological, and industrial purposes. 
That will become clear as we proceed. 

It follows from the way in which the child is made and from the 
constitution and appeal of modern society that instruction in 
objects and in phenomena will at one time or another play a very 
prominent part in the Modern School. It is, however, clear that 
mere knowledge of phenomena, and mere ability to understand or 
to produce objects falls short of the ultimate purpose of a Hberal 
education. Such knowledge and such ability indubitably have, as 
President Eliot's paper pointed out, great value in themselves; 
and they imply such functioning of the senses as promises a rich 
fund of observation and experience. But in the end, if the Modern 
School is to be adequate to the need of modern life, this concrete 



10 

training must produce sheer intellectual power. Abstract think- 
ing has perhaps never before played so important a part in life as 
in this materiahstic and scientific world of ours — this world of rail- 
roads, automobiles, wireless telegraphy, and international relation- 
ships* Our problems involve indeed concrete data and present 
themselves in concrete forms; but, back of the concrete details, 
lie difficult and involved intellectual processes. Hence the real-, 
istic education we propose must eventuate in intellectual power. 
We must not only cultivate the child's interests, senses, and prac- 
tical skill, but we must train him to interpret what he thus gets to 
the end that he may not only be able to perceive and to do, but 
that he may know in intellectual terms the significance of what he 
has perceived and done. The Modern School would prove a dis- 
appointment, unless greater intellectual power is procurable on 
the basis of a realistic training than has been procured from a 
formal education, which is prematurely intellectual and to no 
shght extent a mere make-believe. 

A MODERN CURRICULUM 

Aside from the simply instrumental studies mentioned — read- 
ing, writing, spelling and figuring — the curriculum of the modern 
school would be built out of actual activities in four main fields 
which I shall designate as science, industry, aesthetics, civics. Let 
me sketch briefly a realistic treatment of each of these fields. 

The work in science would be the central and dominating feature 
of the school — a departure that is sound from the standpoint of 
psychology and necessary from the standpoint of our main pur- 
pose. Children would begin by getting acquainted with objects — 
animate and inanimate; they would learn to know trees, plants, 
animals, hills, streams, rocks, and to care for animals and plants. 
At the next stage, they would follow the life cycles of plants and 
animals and study the processes to be observed in inanimate things. 
They would also begin experimentation — physical, chemical, and 
biological. In the upper grades, science would gradually assume 
more systematic form. On the basis of abundant sense-acquired 
knowledge and with senses sharpened by constant use, children 
would be interested in problems and in the theoretic basis on which 
their solution depends. They wUl make and understand a fireless 
cooker, a camera, a wireless telegraph; and they will ultimately 



II 

deal with phenomena and their relations in the most rigorous sci- 
entific form. 

The work in science just outhned differs from what is now at- 
tempted in both its extent and the point of view. Our efforts at 
science teaching up to this time have been disappointing for reasons 
which the above outUne avoids: the elementary work has been 
altogether too incidental; the advanced work has been prematurely 
abstract; besides, general conditions have been unfavorable. The 
high school boy who begins a systematic course of physics or chem- 
istry without the previous training above described lacks the basis in 
experience which is needed to make systematic science genuinely 
real to him. The usual textbook in physics or chemistry plunges 
him at once into a world of symbols and definitions as abstract as 
algebra. Had an adequate reahstic treatment preceded, the 
symbols, when he finally reached them, would be reaHties. The 
abyss between sense training and intellectual training would thus 
be bridged. 

Of coordinate importance with the world of science is the world 
of industry. The child's mind is easily captured for the observa- 
tion and execution of industrial and commercial processes. The 
industries growing out of the fundamental needs of food, clothing 
and shelter; the industries, occupations and apparatus involved 
in transportation and communication — all furnish practically un- 
limited openings for constructive experiences, for experiments and 
for the study of commercial practices. Through such experiences 
the boy and girl obtain not only a clearer understanding of the 
social and industrial foundations of life, but also opportunities for 
expression and achievement in terms natural to adolescence. 

Under the word "aesthetics" — an inappropriate term, I admit — I 
include Hterature, language, art, and music — subjects in which the 
schools are mainly interested on the appreciative side. Perhaps 
in no other realm would a realistic point of view play greater havoc 
with established routine. The literature that most schools now 
teach is partly obsolete, partly ill-timed, rarely effective or appeal- 
ing. Now nothing is more wasteful of time or in the long run more 
damaging to good taste than unwilling and spasmodic attention 
to what history and tradition stamp as meritorious or respectable 
in Hterature; nothing more futile than the make-beUeve by which 
children are forced to worship as "classics" or "standards" what 



12 

in their hearts they revolt from because it is ill-chosen or ill- 
adjusted. The historic importance or inherent greatness of a Ut- 
erary document furnishes the best of reasons why a mature critical 
student of hterature or hterary history should attend to it; but 
neither consideration is of the sUghtest educational cogency in 
respect to a child at school. A reahstic treatment of hterature 
would take hold of the child's normal and actual interests in ro- 
mance, adventure, fact or what not, and endeavor to develop them 
into as effective habits of reading as may be. Translations, 
adaptations and originals in the vernacular — old and new — are all 
equally available. They ought to be used unconventionally and 
resourcefully, not in order that the child may get — what he will not 
get anyway — a conspectus of hterary development; not in order 
that he may some day be certificated as having analyzed a few 
outstanding literary classics; but solely in order that his real 
interest in books may be carried as far and as high as is for him 
possible; and in this effort, the methods pursued should be cal- 
culated to develop his interest and his taste, not to " train his mind" 
or to make of him a make-believe Hterary scholar. There would be 
less pretentiousness in the reahstic than there is in the orthodox 
teaching of literature; but perhaps in the end the child would 
really know and care about some of the Hving masterpieces and 
in any event there might exist some connection between the school's 
teaching and the child's spontaneous out-of-school reading. 

Of the part to be played by art and music I am not qualified to 
speak. I do not even know to what extent their teaching has been 
thought of from this point of view. I venture to submit, however, 
that the problem presented by them does not differ in principle 
from the problem presented by hterature. Literature is to be 
taught in the Modern School primarily for the purpose of develop- 
ing taste, interest and appreciation, not for the purpose of producing 
persons who make hterature or who seem to know its history; we 
hope to train persons, not to write poems or to discuss their his- 
toric place, but to care vitally for poetry — though not perhaps 
without a suspicion that this is the surest way of hberating creative 
talent. The Modern School would, in the same way, endeavor to 
develop a spontaneous, discriminating and genuine artistic interest 
and appreciation — rather than to fashion makers of music and art. 
It would take hold of the child where he is and endeavor to develop 



13 

and to refine his taste; it would not begin with "classics" nor 
would it necessarily end with them. By way of showing, however, 
that a real curriculum is not synonymous with an easy curriculum, 
I may say that, if, as one factor in appreciation, it should be de- 
cided that all children should at least endeavor to learn, say, some 
form of instrumental music, the fact that there arc certain advan- 
tages to be gained from an early start must decide the "when" 
and the "how," regardless of the child's inclination or disinclina- 
tion. It is none the less true, however, that the child's interests 
and capacities are in general so fundamental and so significant 
that the question here raised is not often presented. Most of 
what a child should do coincides with its own preference, or with 
a preference very readily ehcited. But preference or lack of pre- 
ference on the child's part is not a sole or final consideration. 

The study of foreign languages must be considered in this connec- 
tion. Thecaseof Latin and Greek will be taken up later; German, 
French, perhaps other languages are now in question. Languages 
have no value in themselves; they exist solely for the purpose of 
communicating ideas and abbreviating our thought and action 
processes. If studied, they are valuable only in so far as they are 
practically mastered — not otherwise; so at least the Modern 
School holds. From this standpoint, for purposes of travel, trade, 
study, and enjoyment, educated men who do not know French 
and German usually come to regret it keenly. When they en- 
deavor during mature life to acquire a foreign tongue, they find the 
task inordinately difficult and the results too often extremely dis- 
appointing. It happens, however, that practical mastery of 
foreign languages can be attained early in life with comparative 
ease. A school trying to produce a resourceful modern type of 
educated man and woman would therefore pro\dde practical train- 
ing in one or more modern languages. 

The fourth main division which I have called civics, includes 
history, institutions, and current happenings. Much has been 
written, Uttle done, toward the effective modernization of this work; 
so that though new views of historical values prevail in theory, the 
schools go on teaching the sort of history they have always taught 
and in pretty much the same way. "Should a student of the past," 
writes Professor Robinson of Columbia, "be asked what he re- 
garded as the most original and far-reaching discov-ery of modern 



14 

limes, he might reply with some assurance that it is our growing 
realization of the fundamental importance and absorbing interest 
of common men and common things.""^ Now the conventional 
treatment of histor}- is political. Meanwhile, as Professor Robin- 
son goes on to say, 'It is clear that our interests are changing, and 
consequently the kind of questions that we ask the past to answer. 
Our most recent manuals venture to leave out some of the tradi- 
tional facts least appropriate for an elementar}- re\iew of the past 
and endeavor to bring their narrative into relation, here and there, 
vdih modem needs and demands. But I think that this process of 
eliminating the old and substituting the new might be carried much 
farther; that our best manuals are still crowded %\-ith facts that 
are not worth while bringing to the attention of our boys and girls 
and that they still omit in large measure those things that are 
best worth telling.'"- If this be true, as it appears to be, the 
reahstic approach may make as much difference in histon,- as in 
literature. 

The subject of mathematics offers peculiar difficulty. Perhaps 
nowhere else is waste through failure so great. ^loreover, even 
when a certain degree of success is attained, it happens often that 
it is quite unintelligent; children mechanically earn,- out certain 
operations in algebra, gtiided b}' arbitrar}- signs and models; or 
they learn memoriter a series of propositions in geometn,-. The 
hollovvTiess of both performances — and most children do not ac- 
complish even so much — is e\ident the moment a mathematical 
problem takes a slightly unfamihar turn. The child's helplessness 
exhibits a striking lack of both mathematical knowledge and 
"mental discipline. "'' It cannot be that this training through 
failure is really valuable. Finally, a point might even be made on 
the ground that algebra and geometn.- as traditionally taught are 
mainly deductive exercises, whereas practical li\ing involves the 
constant interplay of observation, induction and deduction. The 
artificialit\' of conventional mathematics therefore raises a sus- 
picion as to its value — even were the subjects mastered. 

The truth is that the present position of both algebra and ge- 
ometr>- is historical. Now, let us suppose the realisdc standard 
applied — how much mathematics would be taught, when, and in 

1 " The New Histor>-," (New York, 1913) p. 132. 
'Ibid, p. 137. 



15 
what form? "Mental discipline" as a formal object is not a "real- 
istic" argument, since, as has been already said, it is an unproved 
assumption. At any rate, it is for those who believe in it to de- 
monstrate how much good it does most children to make a failure 
in algebra and geometry. Is the elaborate study of mathematical 
and spatial relations through algebra and geometry' a valid under- 
taking for its owTi sake? If so, neither the disinclination of the 
cliild nor the difficulty of the achievement is a reason for abandoning 
it. DisincHnation and difficulty in that case simply put a problem 
up to the teachers of the subject: it is for them to find ways of 
triumphing over both. If, however, this study does not serve a 
legitimate and genuine purpose, then the mathematical curriculum 
must undergo a radical reorganization for the purpose of treating 
algebra and geometry from the standpoint of the other subjects 
which they serve. They would be taught in such form, in such 
amounts and at such times as the other subjects required. Thus 
geometry would be decreased in amount by something like two- 
thirds or three-fourths^ and the form of the remaining fourth would 
be considerably modified. It is interesting to observe that doubt 
as to the soundness and value of our mathematical instruction has 
recently become so serious a matter that the Association of Teach- 
ers of Mathematics in New England has suggested "a one-year 
course in elementarj' algebra and geometry- of a concrete sort, de- 
signed so far as possible to test the pupil's qualifications for future 
mathematical study" ;^ and Dr. Snedden has raised the question 
as to why girls in high schools or as candidates for college should 
be required to present algebra; he has also urged that a knowledge 
of algebra is of no importance to men following law, medicine, 
journahsm, or theolog}'.^ Professor BresHch of Chicago, has been 
attacking the same problem \-igorously from a not unrelated 
point of \-iew.'* Without considering any point settled, it is clear 
that a Modern School which wiped the slate of mathematics and 



i".\ll the facts of geometry that a skilled mechanic or an engineer would 
ever need could be taught in a few lessons. .\11 the rest is either obvious or is 
commercially and technically useless." — D. E. Smith, "Teaching of Geometiy," 
(New York, 191 1) p. 7. 

-Prelimtaaiy Report on Status of ^Mathematics in Secondary Schools, Decem- 
ber, 1914, p. II. 

'Ibid, p. 4. 

* First Year Mathematics, (Chicago, 1906.) Author's Preface. 



i6 

then subsequently wrote upon it only what was found to serve the 
real needs of quantitative thought and action might evolve a 
curriculum in mathematics that we should not recognize. 

For convenience sake, the four large fields of activity have been 
separately discussed. But it must be pointed out that the failure 
of the traditional school to make cross connections is an additional 
unreahty. The traditional school teaches composition in the 
English classes; quantitative work, in the mathematics classes; 
history, literature, and so on each in its appropriate division. 
Efforts are indeed making to overcome this separateness but they 
have gone only a little way. The Modern School would from the 
first undertake the cultivation of contacts and cross-connections. 
Every exercise would be a spelling lesson; science, industry, and 
mathematics would be inseparable; science, industry, history, 
civics, Uterature, and geography would to some extent utilize the 
same material. These suggestions are in themselves not new and 
not wholly untried. What is lacking is a consistent, thorough- 
going, and fearless embodiment. For even the teachers who 
believe in modern education are so situated that either they 
cannot act, or they act under limitations that are fatal to effective 
effort. 

In speaking of the course of study, I have dwelt wholly on con- 
tent. Unquestionably, however, a curriculum, revolutionized in 
content, will be presented by methods altered to suit the spirit 
and aim of the instruction. For children will not be taught merely 
in order that they may know or be able to do certain things that 
they do not now know and cannot now do, but material will be 
presented to them in ways that promote their proper development 
and growth — individually and socially. For education is not only 
a matter of what people can do, but also of what they are. 

In the preceding sketch, I have made no distinction between the 
sexes. It is just as important for a girl as it is for a boy to be inter- 
ested in the phenomenal world, to know how to observe, to infer, 
and to reason, to understand industrial, social, and political de- 
velopments, to read good books, and to finish school by the age of 
twenty. Differentiation at one point or another may be suggested 
by experience. In any event the Modern School, with its strongly 
reaUstic emphasis will undoubtedly not overlook woman's domestic 
role and family function. 



17 



WHAT THE CURRICULUM OMITS 



This necessarily brief and untechnical sketch will perhaps be- 
come more definite if I look at the curriculum from the standpoint 
of the omissions. Let us restate our guiding thesis: modern edu- 
cation will include nothing simply because tradition recommends it 
or because its inutility has not been conclusively estabUshed. It 
proceeds in precisely the opposite way: it includes nothing for which 
an affirmative case cannot now be made out. As has already been 
intimated, this method of approach would probably result in greatly 
reducing the time allowed to mathematics, and in decidedly chang- 
ing the form of what is still retained. If, for example, only so 
much arithmetic is taught as people actually have occasion to use, 
the subject will shrink to modest proportions; and if this reduced 
amount is taught so as to serve real purposes, the teachers of sci- 
ence, industry, and domestic economy will do much of it incident- 
ally. The same poHcy may be employed in dealing with algebra 
and geometry. What is taught, when it is taught, and how it is 
taught will in that event depend altogether on what is needed, 
when it is needed, and the form in which it is needed. 

Precisely the same line of reasoning would be applied to English, 
history, and Uterature. For example: There has been a heated 
discussion for years on the subject of formal grammar, which has 
been defended, first, on the ground that it furnishes a valuable 
mental discipline; second, on the ground that it assists the correct 
use of language. It is passing strange how many ill-discipUned 
minds there are among those who have spent years being mentally 
disciplined now in this subject, now in that. The Modern School 
would not hesitate to take the risk to mental discipline involved 
in dropping the study of formal grammar. It would, tentatively, 
at least, also risk the consequences to correct speech involved in 
the same step. For such evidence as we possess points to the 
futility of formal grammar as an aid to correct speaking and writing. 
The study would be introduced later, only if a real need for it were 
felt — and only in such amounts and at such periods as this need 
clearly required. 

In respect to history and Uterature, a Modern School would have 
the courage not to go through the form of teaching children useless 
historic facts just because previous generations of children have 



i8 

learned and forgotten them; and also the courage not to read 
obsolete and uncongenial classics, simply because tradition has 
made this sort of acquaintance a kind of good form. We might 
thus produce a generation as ignorant of the name of the Licinian 
laws as we who have studied them are ignorant of their contents 
and significance; a generation that did not at school analyze 
Milton's "Lycidas" or Burke's speech as we did, who then and 
there vowed hfe-long hostiUty to both. But might there not be an 
offset if the generation in question really cared about the history 
and politics of, say, modern England or New York City, and read 
for sheer fun at one time or another and quite regardless of chrono- 
logical order Homer, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Walter Scott, Steven- 
son, Kipling, and Masefield? 

Neither Latin nor Greek would be contained in the curriculum 
of the Modern School — not, of course, because their literatures are 
less wonderful than they are reputed to be, but because their 
present position in the curriculum rests upon tradition and assump- 
tion. A positive case can be made out for neither. The literary 
argument fails, because stumbling and blundering through a few 
patches of Latin classics do not establish a contact with Latin 
literature. Nor does present-day teaching result in a practical 
mastery of Latin useful for other purposes. Mature students 
who studied Latin through the high school, and perhaps to some 
extent in college, find it difficult or impossible to understand a 
Latin document encountered in, say, a course in history. If prac- 
tical master}-' is desired, more Latin can be learned in enormously 
less time by postponing the study until the student needs the 
language or wants it. At that stage he can learn more Latin in a few 
months than he would have succeeded in acquiring through four or 
five years of reluctant effort in youth. Finally, the disciplinary ar- 
gument fails, because mental discipline is not a real purpose; more- 
over, it would in any event constitute an argument against rather 
than for the study of Latin. I have quoted figures to show how 
egregiously we fail to teach Latin. These figures mean that instead 
of getting orderly training by solving difiiculties in Latin trans- 
lation or composition, pupils guess, fumble, receive surreptitious 
assistance or accept on faith the injunctions of teacher and gram- 
mar. The only discipline that most students could get from their 



19 
classical studies is a discipline in doing things as they should not 
be done.^ 

EXTRA CUREICULAR ACTIVITIES 

So far I have discussed the Modern School only from the stand- 
point of its course of study. It is time now to mention other im- 
pUcations of the realistic or genuine point of view. If children are 
to be taught and trained with an eye to the reahties of life and 
existence, the accessible world is the laboratory to be used for that 
purpose. Let us imagine a Modern School located in New York 
City; consider for a moment its assets for educational purposes: 
the harbor, the MetropoUtan Museum, the PubUc Library, the 
Natural History Museum, the Zoological Garden, the city govern- 
ment, the Weather Bureau, the transportation systems, lectures, 
concerts, plays, and so on. Other communities may have less, 
but all have much. As things now are, children living in this rich 
and tingUng environment get for the most part precisely the same 
education that they would be getting in, let us say, Oshkosh or 
Keokuk. Again, the Modern School is as much interested in the 
child's body as in his mind. It would therefore provide play- 
facihties, sports, and gymnastics. A study of Gary^ and of the 
country day schools, now springing up should tell us whether the 
Modern School should or should not seek to provide for the child's 
entire day. Some of this additional material, we already know 
pretty well how to organize and use; as for the rest, we shall 
have to find out. 

It is evident that, while in some directions the Modern School 
would have a fairly clear path, in others it would have to feel its 
way, and in all its attitude would be distinctly tentative and ex- 
perimental. To no small extent it would have to create apparatus 
and paraphernalia as it proceeds. Textbooks, for example, almost 
invariably conform to tradition; or innovate so slightly as to be, 
from our point of view, far from satisfactory. The Modern School 
would thus at the start be at a great disadvantage as compared with 

1 1 should perhaps deal with yet another argument — viz. that Latin aids in 
securing a vigorous or graceful use of the mother tongue. Like the argu- 
ments previously considered, this is unsubstantiated opinion; no evidence has 
ever been presented in proof. 

-The General Education Board has just authorized a study of the Gary 
schools, the results of which will be published. 



20 

established schools that seek gradual improvement through read- 
justment. But it would have this advantage — that it could really 
try its experiments with a free hand. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE MODERN SCHOOL 

President Eliot's paper was called "Changes Needed in Secon- 
dary Education." But the habits and capacities needed in a 
reconstructed secondary school are those whose formation must be 
begun in the primary school. A modern secondary school cannot 
be built on a conventional elementary school. If the primary years 
are lost in the conventional school, the child's native freshness of 
interest in phenomena has to be recovered in youth — a difficult 
and uncertain task, which, even if successful, does not make up 
the loss to the child's fund of knowledge and experience. Nor 
can the child's singular facility in acquiring a speaking command 
of other languages be retrieved. The Modern School would there- 
fore have to begin with a vestibule, an elementary " Vorschule," in 
which children would be started properly. The relation between 
elementary and secondary education would be a matter for ex- 
perimental determination; for whatever may prove to be right, the 
present break is surely wrong. So, also, the relation of the Modern 
School to the American College would have to be worked out by 
experience. 

POSSIBLE RESULTS 

Would the proposed education educate? Many of the disagree- 
able features of education with which under existing circumstances 
children are compelled to wrestle would be eliminated. Would 
not the training substituted be soft — lacking in vigor, incapable of 
teaching the child to work against the grain? Again, is there not 
danger that a school constituted on the modern basis would be 
unsympathetic with ideals and hostile to spiritual activity? 

Two questions are thus raised, (i) the question of discipline, 
moral and mental, (2) the question of interest or taste. 

There is, I think, no harm to be apprehended on either score. 
The Modern School would "discipHne the mind" in the only way 
in which the mind can be effectively disciplined — by energizing 
it through the doing of real tasks. The formal difi&culties which 
the Modern School discards are educationally inferior to the 



21 

genuine difficulties involved in science, industry, literature and 
politics; for formal problems are not apt to evoke prolonged and 
resourceful effort. It is, indeed, absurd to invent formal difficulties 
for the professed purpose of discipline, when, within the Umits 
of science, industry, hterature, and poHtics, real problems abound. 
Method can be best acquired, and stands the best chance of being 
acquired, if real issues are presented. Are problems any the less 
problems because a boy attacks them with intelligence and zest? 
He does not attack them because they are easy, nor does he 
shrink from them because they are hard. He attacks them, if he 
has been wisely trained, because they challenge his powers. And 
in this attack he gets what the conventional school so generally 
fails to give — the energizing of his faculties, and a directive clue as 
to where he will find a congenial and effective object in life. 

A word on the subject of what I have just called the "directive 
clue." Our college graduates are in large numbers pathetically 
in the dark as to "what next." Even the elective system has not 
enabled most of them to find themselves. The reason is clear. A 
formal education, devoted to "training the mind" and "culture" 
does little to connect capacity with opportunity or ambition. The 
more positive endowments, of course, assert themselves; but the 
more positive endowments are relatively scarce. In the absence 
of bent, social pressure determines a youth's career in America less 
frequently than in more tightly organized societies. But an edu- 
cation that from the start makes a genuine appeal will disclose, 
develop and specialize interest. It will, in a word, furnish the in- 
dividual with a clue. 

In this connection it may be fairly asked whether, in the end, it 
will not turn out that the Modern School practically eschews com- 
pulsion. Not at all. But it distinguishes. First of all, the inter- 
ests of childliood, spontaneous or readily excitable, are of great 
educational significance: interests in life, objects, adventure, fancy 
— these the Modern School proposes to utiUze and to develop in 
their natural season. Next, the capacities of childhood — for the 
learning of languages, for example — of these the Modern School 
proposes to make timely use with a view to remote contingencies. 
So far there is little need to speak of compulsion. Compulsion 
will be employed, however, to accompUsh anything that needs to 
be accomplished by compulsion, provided it can be accomplished 



22 

by compulsion. Children can and, if necessary, must be compelled 
to spell and to learn the multipUcation table, and anything else that 
serves a chosen purpose, near or remote; but they cannot be com- 
pelled to care about the Faerie Queene, and sheer compulsion 
appUed to that end is wasted. If children cannot through skilful 
teaching be brought to care about the Faerie Queene, compulsory 
reading of a book or two is as futile a performance as can be im- 
agined. The Modern School will not therefore eschew compulsion; 
but compulsion will be employed with intelligence and discrimina- 
tion. 

As to the second question — whether the Modern School would 
not be spiritually unsympathetic, the answer depends on the re- 
lation of genuine interests of a varied character to spiritual activity. 
It is, of course, obvious that, if the Modern School were hmited 
to industrial or commercial activities, with just so much language, 
mathematics and science as the effective prosecution of those 
activities requires, the higher potentiahties of the child would 
remain undeveloped. But the Modern School proposes nothing 
of this kind. It undertakes a large and free handUng of the phe- 
nomenal world, appeahng in due course to the observational, the 
imaginative and the reasoning capacities of the child; and in pre- 
cisely the same spirit and with equal emphasis, it will utilize art, 
Hterature and music. Keeping always within reach of the child's 
genuine response should indeed make for, not against the develop- 
ment of spiritual interests. Are science and such poetry as chil- 
dren can be brought to love more likely or less likely to stir the 
soul than formal grammar, algebra, or the literature selections that 
emanate from the people who supervise the college entrance ex- 
aminations? 

The education of the particular pupils who attend the Modern 
School might prove to be the least of the services rendered by the 
School. More important would perhaps be its influence in setting 
up positive as against dogmatic educational standards. We go 
on teaching this or that subject in this or that way for no better 
reason than that its ineffectiveness or harmfulness has not been 
established. Medicines were once generally and are still not 
infrequently prescribed on exactly the same basis. Modern teach- 
ing, like modern medicine, should be controlled by positive indi- 
cations. The schools should teach Latin and algebra, if at all, 



/ 



/ 



23 

just as the intelligent physician prescribes quinine, because it 
serves a purpose that he knows and can state. Nor will tact and 
insight and enthusiasm cease to be efficient virtues, simply be- 
cause curriculum and teaching method are constant objects of 
scientific scrutiny. 

In education, as in other realms, the inquiring spirit will be the 
productive spirit. There is an important though not very exten- 
sive body of educational hterature of philosophical and inspirational 
character; but there is Uttle of scientific quahty. The scientific 
spirit is just beginning to creep into elementary and secondary 
schools; and progress is slow, because the conditions are unfavor- 
able. The Modern School should be a laboratory from which 
would issue scientific studies of all kinds of educational problems — 
a laboratory, first of all, which would test and evaluate critically 
the fundamental propositions on which it is itself based, and the 
results as they are obtained. 

The inauguration of the experiment discussed in this paper would 
be at first seriously hampered because of the lack of school para- 
phernaha adapted to its spirit and purposes. Textbooks, apparatus 
and methods would have to be worked out — contrived, tentatively 
employed, remodelled, tried elsewhere, and so on. In the end the 
implements thus fashioned would be an important factor in assist- 
ing the reorganization and reconstruction of other schools — schools 
that could adopt a demonstration, even though they could not have 
made the original experiment. 

Finally, the Modern School, seeking not only to train a particular 
group of children, but to influence educational practice, can be a 
seminary for the training of teachers, first, its own, then others 
who will go out into service. The difficulty of recruiting a satis- 
factory staflf to begin with must not be overlooked; for available 
teachers have been brought up and have taught on traditional 
lines. On the other hand, the spirit of revolt is rife; and teachers 
can be found whose efforts have already passed beyond conven- 
tional limits. With these the new enterprise would be started. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



020 407 570 



Fs'x^ 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

■iii 

020 407 570 yi 



Hollinger Corp. 
pH8.5 



